European and External Relations Committee, 28 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Official Report 248KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive European Union Office (Annual Report)

We move on to item 5, which is on the "Scottish Executive EU Office: Annual Report for 2003-04". The report gives us detail on the involvements and activities of the EU office. I note in the letter from the minister that we requested the report earlier in the year. Does any member have a comment on the report?

I am one of the committee members who took initial evidence from the Scottish Executive European Union office and who made the request for the report at the time, which was around February 2003. I am very disappointed about the time that it has taken to bring the matter back before the committee. Given the delay, I would have liked to have seen a fuller report. I will be interested to hear colleagues' views on the subject.

If we are to expand on the issue, it might be helpful to invite someone from the Executive's EU office to come to committee. That would give us the opportunity of further discussion on some of the issues. I have noted some points, but instead of expanding on them today, I would like to hear colleagues' views on my suggestion. If we agree to pursue that road, I will reserve my questions for the time when an appropriate official can come before us.

I disagree slightly with Irene Oldfather; the report is quite useful. What worries my about it, however, is that we seem to be operating in compartments. We get the report and then all of a sudden we know about things like the fourth annual Belgo-British conference that the SEEUO helped to bring to Edinburgh last October. I did not have a clue that that was going on.

We also get to hear that the

"Districts of Creativity meet in Flanders".

Although those of us who went to Flanders knew about the forum, it would be useful to have a report back on it. A bizarre—almost a random—collection of regions seems to have been included. It would be interesting to know more about the forum.

Similarly—this is a personal interest—I note Baroness Helena Kennedy's St Andrew's day lecture. Although I understand that she is now the former chairman of the British Council, she could make a good additional witness in our promotion of Scotland inquiry. It might be helpful to invite her, not only because of her experience of an important role in the British Council but because she is a Scot.

Although the report contains useful information, one sometimes feels that we hear about events only after they have happened. Who knows? Some of us might have been in Brussels at the time of some of the events.

I commend the SEEUO on the film festival. I have had feedback on it and understand that it was very successful. Perhaps there should be a Scottish weekend in Brussels with Dundee Rep Theatre one night and a whisky tasting on another night. That could act as a huge showcase for Scotland—we could invite representatives from all the member states.

I reinforce some of what Keith Raffan and Irene Oldfather have said and congratulate the diary secretary at Scotland House on compiling the paper and sending it to us. However, to grant the paper the status of a report would be a misuse of language.

That said, I agree with the recommendation in paragraph 4 of paper EU/S2/04/16/3. The Executive's head of office at Scotland House should appear before the committee once or twice a year to discuss past events and events that are about to happen, as Keith Raffan said. Perhaps a 12-month forward look could be given.

I simply want to underline another thing that has gone ahead, which is now water under the bridge. From what I have seen of what the office is up to in Brussels, it is still beyond me why it could not have considered Scottish parliamentary affairs in Brussels too, rather than only Executive affairs. The convener might recall that the Scottish Parliament is setting up yet another office in Brussels for Scottish parliamentarians. It seems to me that that office could have come under the umbrella of the office that we are discussing.

I strongly object to Phil Gallie's suggestion. There is a big distinction between the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Part of the job of the Parliament and the committee is to bring the Executive to account rather than to climb into the same bed.

On that last provocative remark from Mr Canavan, I want to draw consideration of the item to a close. Distinctions between Parliament and the Executive are important, and it is important to preserve them. In that respect, I sympathise with Mr Canavan.

I was struck by what Alasdair Morrison said about the report, which seems to be a downloading of the diary secretary's output. It is also terribly reactive—it is all about what has happened and about responding to things.

To hear about what the office intends to achieve over a 12-month, 24-month or 36-month period to advance the Scottish Executive's arguments would be helpful, and we should certainly hear about that from the head of the SEEUO. That office cannot look into a crystal ball and tell us absolutely everything that is likely to come up, but we should be able to scrutinise whether the office is appropriately resourced to provide the type of interrogative facilities that are required to ensure that our interests are being protected in the European Union.

I will convey members' comments in my reply to the minister. In particular, I will say that we want to question the head of office about the report in the future, and that we want much more explanation of the functions and roles of the office so that we can determine in advance whether it can deliver our expectations.

You mention questioning the head of office in the future. Do you mean for the next report? It would be good to see the head of office about the report that we are discussing. Perhaps he would then have a clear idea of what we want.

I mentioned seeing the head of office in the future in order not to pin things down to a particular debate. Ideally, I would like an early explanation from the head of office about the office's current priorities, what it is resourced to deal with and its expectations of its role. We could then judge whether it is sufficient to protect the interests of Scotland in the European Union.

I was going to raise the point that Keith Raffan raised. It is important that we have a reasonably early meeting at some point in the next few months. My understanding from the discussions that we had some years ago was that, as a result of questioning at that time, we asked the office to put down on paper the forward look—the vision of where we are going. Therefore, it would be helpful if someone came along to the committee sooner rather than later.

We will set an early timescale on the matter and request a different type of report from the one that we received on this occasion.